So I have a class where I just wrote a 12 page essay for about The Shining novel by King versus the Kubrick movie, and the movie kind of terrible... or it's kind of terrible as an adaption of King's novel. Now I won't paste my 12 page essay on here, but it was surreal hearing the bomb squad talking about The Shining hours after I finished the essay.
Basically I mentioned that by omitting key character back stories, story elements and motivations, the movie ends up being devoid of the same human based psychological drama that is the key element of King's work, and the story instead just devolves into a typical haunted house/slasher flick.
I mean none of the back stories of the Torrance family is explored in the movie, which makes Jack's transformation from a guy down on his luck and fighting his inner demons, to a character who is straight up a psychopath from the outset. I mean why does he suddenly start cursing up a storm when Wendy walks in on him typing his story? Cabin fever? In the book, the presence of Danny and his immense shining powers start to empower the "ghost" of the overlook to the point where they can do more then just haunt the hotel. They physically start manifesting so that even people who don't shine can see them. It's these same ghosts that play around with Jack's mind and start having him becoming crazier. The whole thread about Danny being the catalyst isn't even brought up in the movie, and instead his only powers are essentially telepathy.
So, maybe I was being judgmental because of my assignment and since I had just read the novel, but what about Kubrick's work makes it exactly a classic? Was it really technically well produced for the time? Because as an adaption of King's book, it kind of sucks.